Mr. Dycot de la Ay undertakes to organize a collegium of lawyers, i.e., to invite two additional lawyers, of whom one must be a member of the socialist party.

This collegium of lawyers must edit and sign a reasoned opinion containing:

1°. The complete text of the fundamental and decisive documents (i.e., documents which are necessary and sufficient to substantiate before the court Mr. Ulyanov's claim).

2°. A thorough and detailed analysis of these documents, proving that Citizeness Zetkin is wrong, that she must immediately return the disputed money to Mr. Ulyanov, and that she will be committing a breach of trust if she refuses to do so.

3°. An analysis of the legal obstacles in this matter, if any exist in it, and proof that these obstacles are fictitious and that Mr. Ulyanov can and must summon Citizeness Zetkin to court in Stuttgart.

Mr. Ulyanov undertakes to pay Mr. Dycot de la Ay a sum of five thousand francs if, by virtue of this opinion of the collegium of lawyers and other measures which Mr. Dycot de la Ay deems useful, Citizeness Zetkin returns the money to Mr. Ulyanov before August 1, 1912.

In the opposite case, Mr. Ulyanov undertakes to pay Mr. Dycot de la Ay a sum — ? —— I must repeat what I have already said to you — we can pay only a very and very moderate sum, and precisely for this reason we are conditioning payment of a very high fee in the event of success. It is highly probable that this matter, with skillful management, will lead to complete success without any lawsuit whatsoever. Not a single serious jurist will be able to deny the following principle:

"If two parties conclude an arbitration agreement and one party transfers the disputed money into the custody of three appointed arbitrators, then the resignation of even one of the arbitrators is sufficient for the effect of the arbitration agreement to be terminated, and the 'custodians' are obliged to return the money to the one who paid it to them."

The only obstacle which could arise consists in the fact that the arbitration agreement was not signed. But this obstacle is illusory, because by a letter signed by all three arbitrators, it is proved that Mr. Ulyanov promised to pay them money. Consequently, the principal fact — the existence of an arbitration agreement — is proved, and civil law, which does not interfere at all in the content of the arbitration agreement, in the substance of the matter, in the motives (moral, political, etc.) by which the arbitrators should have been guided — civil law ensures the observance of the formal obligation: Mr. Ulyanov fulfilled his duty by paying the money to the arbitrators, whereas the arbitrators, in particular, the former arbitrator Zetkin, did not fulfill their duty and must return the money.

If the collegium of lawyers communicates its opinion to: 1) Mrs. Zetkin; 2) Mr. Bebel, chairman of the board of the German party*; 3) the board of the Württemberg socialist party, — then it is highly probable that Citizeness Zetkin will acknowledge that she is wrong and will return the money.

My opponent's sophism — I became acquainted with it through private means — deserves separate consideration. This sophism consists of the following: suppose we are obliged to return the money. But to whom? Is it proved that Mr. Ulyanov was precisely its owner? Did he not act on behalf of one or another group, the Central Committee, etc.?

The defense of Citizeness Zetkin must be very weak if it can resort to such a sophism. After all, the task of the arbitrators consisted precisely in deciding to whom the money belonged, belongs, and should belong. If the arbitrators resigned, then they no longer have the right to raise the question of ownership, of the relationship between various groups, etc., but must only return the money to the one who paid it to them* (and who was recognized in all letters of the arbitrators as a party or one of the contracting parties).

I myself was a lawyer, studied French law and German law regulating relations arising from an arbitration agreement. I have no doubt that Mrs. Zetkin is completely wrong. If it is difficult to find French lawyers who know German**, I could translate for you the corresponding articles of the German civil procedural code*** and the commentary of the most renowned German authors: Haupp and Stein.

* Here V. I. Lenin made an insertion: "and who was the owner, the 'custodian' of this money before the conclusion of the arbitration agreement."

** French law: Code de procedure civile, art. 1012 (Civil Procedural Code, art. 1012).

*** German law: "Civilproceßordnung" § 1033. Cf. Recueil périodique Dalloz, année 1889, 1 partie, page 32 ("Civil Procedural Law" § 1033. See Periodic Collection Dalloz, year 1889, 1 part, page 32): "The arbitration agreement terminates its effect and